Hawkins v. Glover et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying 60 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or Motion for New Trial; denying 62 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on August 28, 2013. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION

JERRY LEE HAWKINS

vs.

PLAINTIFF

Civil No. 4:11-cv-4029

LT. STEVEN GLOVER; CPT. JOHNNY
GODBOLT; DR. JOAN MCLEAN; and
CPT. LOUISE PHILLIPS

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Judgment as
a Matter of Law. (ECF Nos. 60 & 62). Both of these motions ask the Court to reconsider its
Order and Judgment Adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Barry
Bryant. (ECF No. 58). When the Court entered its Order and Judgment, it had not yet received
Plaintiff’s objections to Judge Bryant’s report. (ECF No. 57). Since then, the Court received
Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 59) and has now considered them alongside the present motions.
“‘Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d
407, 414 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246 (7th
Cir. 1987)); Fed R. Civ. P. 59(e). Rule 59(e) “permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, but it
‘may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471,
485 n. 5, 128 S. Ct. 2605, 171 L. Ed. 2d 570 (2008) (quoting 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, pp. 127-28 (2d ed. 1995)).

The Court has carefully reviewed each of Plaintiff’s motions and finds no manifest errors
of law or fact. This case involves several claims of deliberate indifference against Defendants
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Judge Bryant held a hearing on the matter on April 1, 2013
allowing Plaintiff to testify on his own behalf and examine several witnesses in support of his
claims. Thereafter, Judge Bryant found, and this Court agreed, that Plaintiff’s claims against all
Defendants should be dismissed, except for his claims against Defendant Captain Godbolt.
Plaintiff received a judgment against Defendant Goldbolt.
Plaintiff now objects to the dismissal of his claims against the other Defendants and the
amount of damages awarded against Defendant Godbolt. In his objections, Plaintiff primarily
disputes the credibility of the testimony at the April 1, 2013 hearing before Judge Bryant. This
objection, however, is insufficient to alter the judgment under Rule 59(e). Plaintiff appears to
raise arguments that could have been raised at the hearing or prior to the entry of judgment.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 60 & 62)
should be and hereby are DENIED. 1
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 28th day of August, 2013.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

1

The Court also finds that after considering Plaintiff’s objections to Judge Bryant’s report (ECF No. 59) as timely,
and reviewing the record de novo, his objections must be overruled.